I think you're adding to the confusion 3113. What does the color of your eyes have to do with your sexuality? Slyc was focusing on our sexuality, not on the color of our eyes--or that most of us are born with two of them. I don't see any connection you've made between hardwiring and sexuality.

On the Bucky and the "like to suck cock well enough" issue, I didn't zone in what I think is relevant myself in my responses on that. I could see where a male would be willing to suck another male's cock and still be heterosexual--that it's not being able/willing to do that act that's the difference between hetero and bi. I think it's in what can sexually arouse a person. If another male could arouse him sexually (as in cock hard and standing straight up) as could a female, that's what would have me saying he really was bisexual.

Also, sorry to the romantic gang here, but I think most males and females with a normal sex drive think of--and seek--their own orgasm before and more than they think of "pleasing their partner," and I've seen quite a few (and have been there myself--I was seduced and fucked by a man before giving the slightest thought to what this would mean concerning my sexuality) "straight" males zero right in on getting their rocks off when the circumstance was that it was another male willing and able to do it for them. I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn this was so in the female world too.

I don't need to wait around for the majority scientific study report to believe what I do on that. Observation, experience, and common sense seve well enough.

I think you're adding to the confusion 3113. What does the color of your eyes have to do with your sexuality?

I apologize for adding to the confusion. My point there wasn't that having blue eyes relates to sexual hardwiring. My point in that instance was responding to Slyc's question: "Wouldn't you rather believe you have a choice?"

What you would rather believe makes no never mind if we're talking about certain realities. Someone, for example, could ask, "Wouldn't you rather believe you can change your eye color?" And the answer to that might be "yes! I'd rather believe that!"...But either you can (like a cuttlefish) or you can't (like a human being), and what you'd rather believe you can do makes no difference. Ditto with choosing orientation. Either you can/can't or in-between (and who knows, maybe some of of us can but most of us can't?), but what we'd rather believe we can do is irrelevant.

Forgive the perhaps unfortunate (but I think apt) example here, but here's what I see as the difference in regards to what we can believe we have a choice in and change--and what isn't going to change no matter how much we want to believe we can change it: I can say: "If I work out a little every day I can do the marathon next spring..." I can believe this because there are plenty of ways to build up my endurance so that I can walk, hobble or push myself in a wheelchair those 26 miles. It might take all day--but it's doable if I'm willing to work out and change my health habits.

But If I say, "If I run for a little very day I can win the marathon"...that's different. That relies on a lot of factors that I have no choice in--like youth, health, athleticism, etc. I can pretty much guarantee that however much I might wish to believe I have the choice of winning the marathon, and however hard I work at it--the reality is I ain't going to win the marathon. Not unless everyone ahead of me comes down with leg cramps. There are young, professional, hard-core runners that I couldn't match when I was in my prime, let alone now. Ain't gonna happen.

What I would rather believe I have the choice to do isn't going to change that. It is what it is--at least until I get a pair of bionic legs or a brain transplant into a much more athletic body

I apologize for adding to the confusion. My point there wasn't that having blue eyes relates to sexual hardwiring. My point in that instance was responding to Slyc's question: "Wouldn't you rather believe you have a choice?"

I read that he was limiting this choice to the realm of sexuality, not broadening it out to eye color.

I'm not sure I think a male has a choice of what makes his cock stand up and what doesn't, though. I just think it doesn't take much to get the cock to stand up on a male with a normal sex drive--when he thinks there's going to be an ejaculation in it for him.

Whatever you want to believe, the truth is that a LOT of who and what we are IS hardwired into us from the beginning. Which doesn't mean we have no choice--but it does mean we have limited choices. Almost universally, homosexuals insist that they knew their sexual orientation by age five. And they couldn't change it, and all the experiences they had in their pre-teens and teens doesn't alter what they knew at age five.

I wouldn't agree that "a lot" of who and what we are is hardwired into us from the beginning. A lot of recent research says that only about 25% is nature and the rest is nurture (which, of course, includes experiences). And I have also read studies that indicate quite a few homosexuals claim they knew their sexual orientation by an early age and it did not change. That does not mean there weren't experiences or observations during that time that made them evaluate themselves, either then, or later. And, if they had already begun to identify along a particular sexual orientation by that age, that could conceivably have influenced their reactions to later experiences that only reaffirmed their preferences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sr71plt

I don't need to wait around for the majority scientific study report to believe what I do on that. Observation, experience, and common sense seve well enough.

My thinking as well, although I would certainly acquiesce if given absolute proof one way or the other. I doubt that will ever happen, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3113

Forgive the perhaps unfortunate (but I think apt) example here, but here's what I see as the difference in regards to what we can believe we have a choice in and change--and what isn't going to change no matter how much we want to believe we can change it: I can say: "If I work out a little every day I can do the marathon next spring..." I can believe this because there are plenty of ways to build up my endurance so that I can walk, hobble or push myself in a wheelchair those 26 miles. It might take all day--but it's doable if I'm willing to work out and change my health habits.

But If I say, "If I run for a little very day I can win the marathon"...that's different. That relies on a lot of factors that I have no choice in--like youth, health, athleticism, etc. I can pretty much guarantee that however much I might wish to believe I have the choice of winning the marathon, and however hard I work at it--the reality is I ain't going to win the marathon. Not unless everyone ahead of me comes down with leg cramps. There are young, professional, hard-core runners that I couldn't match when I was in my prime, let alone now. Ain't gonna happen.

What I would rather believe I have the choice to do isn't going to change that. It is what it is--at least until I get a pair of bionic legs or a brain transplant into a much more athletic body

Pretty interesting analogies, 3, and I see what you're getting at. Let me give an analogy of my own.

I'm driving down the street, and I witness a pretty bad accident as it happens. One car makes a turn just as another comes flying through the intersection. The results are not pretty, and as I approach the intersection in my car, I see that there are a few people hurt.

Now, I have two basic choices: keep driving, or stop and help. I decide to stop and help because I feel that my conscience, my past life experiences, my gut instinct, tell me I have to do so. Some psychologists would argue I didn't really have a choice as to whether or not I should stop. It's the kind of person I am to help out when I see something like that.

That's the way I see sexuality. No, not as a car wreck, but as a series of experiences and choices throughout life that create my sexual identity. I could choose to ignore or hide that I am attracted to both men and women. I have done so; it bothers me to do it. I now enjoy the fact that I am a bisexual man, for a variety of reasons. I don't advertise it, but neither do I hide it. If, under whatever circumstances, the question of sexual orientation -- or anything related to it -- comes up in conversation, I happily proclaim myself bi. If others are put off by it, oh, well.

I have never, ever, thought that my sexual orientation was anything other than the sum of my life's sexual experiences. A thousand gays and lesbians can claim they knew "what they were" at the age of five. I didn't. And over the years following, up through my mid-twenties, my sexuality was increasingly defined by the experiences I had. I had sex with men, I had sex with women. I found certain things about either occasions that turned me on. I finally realized that I prefer romantic relationships with women, and for the most part, sexual relationships with women as well. I figure I'm about 70/30 regarding sexual preferences, with the 70 percent being my preference to women.

I also know that I'm not alone when it comes to the belief that all -- I suppose I could say nearly all -- humans are born bisexual. I've known this for years. So while my beliefs are largely based on personal experiences, evaluations, and observations, it is not unique and I will stand by it until, as I stated above, irrefutable proof is shown for one particular theory about human sexuality over all others.

ETA: I am ending my involvement in this thread with this post. I have stated my beliefs, explained and defended them, and see no reason to prolong the debate. I respect all other beliefs and theories, but I hold to what I have stated.

Slyc, honey, you can say that about yourself because you are bisexual.

And I think that many other people who have a less rigid sexuality would say that your experiences agree with theirs. I would agree with you, personally.

But your flexibility, and mine, do not define the entire world's ways. Keep your theory, enjoy it, it's a decent working theory for a certain kind of human being-- but in no way, whatsoever, will it work for every person out there. If it were true, millions of older women would be hooking up with each other once they had been deemed over the hill by society-- and they don't. I know hundreds of women who cannot find satisfaction with another woman, and despite the loneliness-- they are still het.

There will never be "one irrefutable theory" about human sexuality. That is simplistic thinking. There will be several theories, which work for some people and not for others. So many influences, experiences, types of brain architecture, hormonal cocktails, genetic anomalies, lifetime experiences, that create each one of us, and that change as we grow and age.

__________________"Oh woe, these be perilous times! Children no longer obey their elders, and everybody is writing a book!"--Pliny the Elder, AD76

ETA: I am ending my involvement in this thread with this post. I have stated my beliefs, explained and defended them, and see no reason to prolong the debate. I respect all other beliefs and theories, but I hold to what I have stated.

It would be nice if that were true but it's not. If someone disagrees with you, many times you attack that person, you even at times make it personal. Except when it comes to Pilot. You two are like too little old men if one of you types something the other acts like it is a god given commandment.

You do make it personal as per your following quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyc_willie

You may now resume your standard misandrist arguments.

You could not get this from any of my post here at lit. Although I freely admit to not holding the male gender in high regard, something men have earned from my life experiences, I in no way hate men.

Another way you could conclude this is I disagree with you or some other men. If this is the case it doesn't make me misandrist, it makes you misogynist or at the very least a man who is very patriarchal, our views don't count. Or could it be because unlike you, a bisexual man, I am a lesbian and have no need or desire for a man's little thingy. Not wanting your's or any other man's little thingy does not make me a misandrist.

I find it funny when you can not logically or by any excepted science defend your position you take your ball and go home. "I am ending my involvement in this thread with this post."

__________________

"If male homosexuals are called 'gay,' then female homosexuals should be called 'ecstatic!'" - Shelly Roberts

PROUDLY QUEER! HAPPILY LESBIAN!

“Some women can't say the word lesbian...even when their mouth is full of one.” - Kate Clinton

I didn't see any point she was making on the issue in her last post. She was just attacking Slyc and taking the opportunity to slam me too. I didn't call her a misandrist on this thread--even though she reeks of it and has consistently done so throughout her posting history to this forum. I haven't felt the need to point out the obvious. Slyc just dropped back in recently, so he's probably just seen it.

And I don't see any point you are making in your last post that isn't just meant to harp either. Which I'd say was interesting if it wasn't so much your style so often. You just like to angry fight on these issues.

You two seem to mostly be in a tizzy that everyone won't buckle their personal views to yours.

So, what's wrong with me just having dropped out of the discussion after giving my perspective and saying you could have yours too and Slyc posting he was doing the same after the same? It doesn't give the man haters a platform to attack and belittle anymore? If so, tough.